Several dental implants are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,743,018; 6,537,070; 6,287,117; 6,164,969; 5,810,592; 5,588,838; 5,376,004 and 4,086,701, and in a pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/849,004 filed May 7, 2001 and Ser. No. 10/216,307 filed Aug. 9, 2002, all of which are incorporated by reference. There are several systems of dental implants in use today. Some of these systems try to resemble the anatomical root of a tooth. These systems, however, have at best produced marginal results. One problem associated with known dental implants is that they commonly include a circular cross section, while the tooth the implant intends to replace is not cylindrical, as illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1C.
This characteristic of conventional implants makes them unable to fully solve the problems that arise when the technique of extraction and immediate implant placement is used. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the circular fixture or platform PF of current implants does not completely fill the socket SK left by the removed tooth, thus a gap GP is left around the fixture. Such gaps extend in both labial and lingual directions due to the difference in shape between the circular fixture or platform PF and the oval or otherwise non-circular shaped socket SK remaining after the extraction of the tooth. This gap can result in undesired gaps between the dental implant and adjacent teeth, and/or can result in areas of food accumulation that can lead to gum and tooth disease.
Another disadvantage of known implants is that the resulting gap discussed above allows the socket to collapse after the tooth is extracted. As such, it is believed desirable to devise an implant that better reproduces the form of the extracted tooth so that the implant will largely fill the socket and such socket collapse can be minimized.
Another problem with known implants is that in situations in which there is less than 3 mm of separation between two adjacent implants, or between an implant and an adjacent tooth, resorption of the bone that separates these two items commonly takes place. Normally, the papilla found between the teeth and implants is supported by this bone. As a result, when the bone is resorbed, the height of the papilla is reduced, which may cause the subsequent collapse of the papilla altogether, which is, of course, undesirable and can impair the success of the dental implant. The circular platform of current implants commonly makes achieving the desired distance between an implant and an adjacent tooth or between two adjacent implants very difficult, if not impossible, as illustrated in FIG. 2 by dimensions A.
In many prior art dental implants, the platform upon which the prosthesis is to be mounted can extend through the emerging gingiva, which can be unattractive.
In view of the current state of technology relating to dental implants, there remains a need for a simple and effective dental implant that overcomes the various problems and deficiencies of past dental implants.